Cookie's Bustle

Never forget what they tried to take from you.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Did the copyright autist win?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I fricking hope so

      If you bump, you are a cuck by default

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Copyright, in modern times, has been perverted so extensively that it now causes the opposite of what it was originally intended to.

        So here is how it started, way back in 1790:
        >The Congress shall have Power...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

        As you can see, the intent of copyright was to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" which includes art like painting, music, and film. By granting ownership of an idea, the creator of that idea is able to profit off of it. This, in turn, creates a financial incentive for artists to create new ideas.

        But, unlike physical property, there is no practical reason for "intellectual property" to be protected. Physical property, for example, is a shirt. It is important to know who a shirt belongs to. If you and me disagree about who owns a shirt, there's a problem because only one of us can wear the shirt. If we both tried it would tear in half. Physical property is a house. If we disagree about who owns a house, we need to find the answer. We can't both live there with our families, setting our own schedules. Thus, shirts and houses are physical property that need to be protected by law.

        Intellectual property is different because an idea can be shared. I can tell you the idea of a superhero I had, and I don't lose an ounce of it. A thousand people can have the same idea and it does not break. It does not need to be protected.Thus, the sole purpose of granting ownership to an idea is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." By offering ownership to ideas, Congress hopes that I will make my idea a reality by writing a story, making a film etc. - thus adding to the commonwealth that we all enjoy. So does modern copyright do this? Yes, sometimes...but it usually does the opposite instead.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

          Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with

          14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
          Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
          Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
          Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

          As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total. This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Should be noted that the insane extension in copyright duration is largely a result of Disney's influence.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >largely a result of Disney's influence
              Thats an understatement, the "Copyright Term Extension Act" is literally nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
              Disney is exclusively responsible, I mean look at this shit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >NO ANON DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? DISNEY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO HOLD ON TO THEIR COPYRIGHT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BRAND INTEGRITY!

                Ah yes just imagine how tarnished their IP would turn out if Disney couldn't hold on to their intellectual property...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm just glad shit like winnie the pooh wasn't theirs to begin with.
                I'd unironically make a full game like the 100 acre woods in kingdom hearts if I had the talent.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What does this mean?
            Established brands are much easier to market, and therefore less risky. This makes everlasting copyright an important tool for the giants of modern entertainment like Disney. Why fund a director's new idea for a superhero when you can just pump out Spider-Man 17? Or Toy Story 5? Or Star Wars Episode 21?

            Ironically, this means that copyright has been twisted to now lead to less creativity and new ideas making it to film.

            On the other hand, it also robs the commonwealth of the ability to express their own culture. The children who grew up with Star Wars: A New Hope turned 41 this year. Think about that...they were born into a world where Star Wars has always existed (from their perspective), they got education, careers, their own families. Some went to film school, or became writers because they were inspired by Star Wars. But sadly, they will most likely retire and die in a world where they never got to make a dollar adding to the thing they loved.

            So who gets to make a Star Wars film instead? Only whoever Kathleen Kennedy (CEO of Lucasfilm) feels like...Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams, I guess. Out of an entire generation and culture.

            You might mention fan films or fan fiction as a counter-point but this is irrelevant. By removing the ability to profit, these writers would be foolish to spend the time and energy (for writing) and the money (for filming) necessary to bring those stories to life. People need to eat, they can't go into crippling debt just to express their culture. So, without a way to profit, fan fiction and film will always be a very low tier of art - rushed out, passion projects or just for practice/experience - meaningless in the large scale of things.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              What would Pokemon look like without the perversion of copyright?
              Continuing with Pokemon as an example, let's imagine for a minute that copyright worked the way a modern researcher determined would be mathematically optimal - 15 years automatically with no renewal.
              https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/

              It may seem crazy, but let's roll with it.

              Copyright begins at publication. For Pokemon, this was 1996 - but not all of Pokemon. Some elements did not premiere until later. Therefore, certain elements would enter the public domain later than others. For example:

              1996 - Pokemon Red and Blue
              2000 - Pokemon Gold and Silver
              2003 - Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire

              Hypothetically, these ideas would enter public domain 15 years later, in:

              2011 - All 150 Pokemon
              2015 - 235 Pokemon
              2018 - All Pokemon from Ruby and Sapphire

              This means that, by 2019, anyone could publish their own Pokemon using every character, planet, concept from the original games (like Red and Blue, Pokemon Snap, and Stadium) and have it available for sale on the shelves of Gamestop. And any producer with the funds could greenlight any game.

              Just like that, suddenly entertainment business would need to compete to bring us the best possible Pokemon they could. Bethesda, Sony, Disney would all be sending scripts to Veronica Taylor and Ikue Otani - tripping over themselves to write the best story they could create - trying to convince them to take the role. Copies sent off to Satoshi for that incredibly valuable "author approved" signature.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What did we get in 2018 instead? Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! And everybody got tricked into spending $60 for it.

                Which version of 2018 would you prefer? As it is, Nintendo can offer whatever quality they want - even if it's garbage. They have a monopoly on the property. They could decided tomorrow that they don't want any more new Pokemon. They could sit on the property for 50 years, publishing nothing - no new books, films, games, nothing - and there's not a thing we could do about it. A cornerstone of our culture...complete control.

                Wouldn't this be unfair to Satoshi and original creators? No. Fifteen years is a long time.

                >By 2018, Nintendo's annual income was $1.79 BILLION
                https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf

                Not bad...an entire generation of fans had thanked them for adding to our culture by giving them a huge pile of money. And, since the property would be free to anyone there would be nothing stopping Nintendo from continuing to sell stories from the world they created. As a bonus, anything with its name attached would always have the advantage in game sales.

                Another example to look at would be J.K. Rowling. Fifteen years after she published Sorceror's Stone, Rowling was already so tired of being a billionaire
                https://www.businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-is-no-longer-a-billionaire-booted-off-forbes-list-2012-3 that she donated $160 million to charity. Again, not a bad trade for enriching our culture by sharing her idea. Fifteen years is a long time.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So how did this happen?
                Well, in short, because nobody cares. Or, at least...they didn't. The problem of copyright is extremely complicated, and the victims are hard to notice. Who cares if a thousand great Star Wars books are never written, because there's no money in it? Who cares if a thousand directors and screenwriters never film a single scene in that galaxy they grew up imagining? It's an abstract ailment.

                On the other hand...who cares if all we get is garbage from here on out - and the Star Wars brand dies because it's being run by a corporation that has no creativity or love of the source material? A corporation who sees Star Wars, not as a cultural cornerstone, but an asset to be squeezed of every last dollar. And when it finally disappears some pundit will say "This is how it had to be. It was all just nostalgia from the beginning." and everyone will go back to sleep. This sounds more familiar. Seems to become more concrete by the day, doesn't it?

                I look especially to the DC characters like Batman and Superman. A viable live-action version of Superman flying hit theaters in 1978 but, because of everlasting copyright law, Batman and Superman didn't meet on screen for another 40 years, and then the result was a complete corporate embarrassment. Despite this, DC has yet to fix their course, and why should they? It's not like anybody else can make a competing film with the characters...

                So maybe we're finally nearing the breaking point. Maybe Axanar was the canary in the coalmine. Maybe Aperion was the shot across the bow.

                I guess we'll see.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Copyright law is dogshit but I've heard that basically everyone in japan hates the japanese go-karts because they cause accidents and are just a general nuisance that only tourists like.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Ha, like bikers in Europe. Kill 'em all.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

          Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with

          14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
          Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
          Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
          Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

          As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total. This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

          You sure wrote a lot, ESL-chan

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You sure suck a lot of dick, fellatio-chan.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            that's delicious pasta, ser newhomosexual

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Everything he wrote was grammatically correct. There's an ESL-gay in this thread but it ain't him.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The level of linguistic proficiency among zoomers is astounding, and to make matters worse, many of them display arrogance in their lack of ability. It's increasingly apparent that they tend to classify anything that exceeds their comprehension as "ESL," as if anything beyond their grasp must be flawed. This attitude reveals their narrow-mindedness, conceit, and hubris. It's no wonder, considering they typically communicate through a series of sentence fragments and emojis.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it's also a lot of actual ESLs butthurt their posts are disregarded because they're ESLs
                so they're going around calling other people that
                I bet some don't even know what it stands for, just that it's negative lmao

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you can share a shirt and a house with people who aren't your family its called adoption

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're missing the point, anon.
            Physical property, like a shirt or a house, needs to be protected by law because it is a finite resource that cannot be shared by everyone at the same time. In contrast, intellectual property, like an idea or a creative work, can be shared and replicated infinitely without losing its original form. The purpose of granting ownership of an idea through copyright law is not to protect the idea itself but to incentivize creators to produce more original ideas that can contribute to the common good.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

          Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with

          14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
          Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
          Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
          Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
          Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

          As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total. This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

          i don't need to register for copyright as long as i have proof that i'm the original creator a la the hobo with the flipbook of itchy and scratchy in the lawsuit episode, right? yes, i know registration extends protections but generally speaking and in terms of recognition of ownership, i just need some proof that i made it, right? does any of this extend to trademarks?
          >inb4 you sound israeli as frick
          i know and i don't care, i don't want my passion project ripped from my hands like the disco elysium devs

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's correct, as long as you can prove that you're the original creator, you automatically own the IP.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              oh i didn't see this when i refreshed, thanks for confirming this then

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            please

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        oh shit he's here

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. In pretend.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    more like Cookie’s Butt Hole!

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what is this shit and why do I keep seeing it everywhere

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Iso ever leaked?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      here
      https://www.myabandonware.com/game/cookie-s-bustle-c5y
      check the comment section for serial (you need to type the - between letters and numbers)

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Shit like this always reminds me how much I just fricking hate people in general.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    god, she's just so fricking smug

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I took out my old XP pc from 2003 to play this game because suddenly videos about it everywhere
    the resolution is fricked, so tiny you can barely see anything

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cookie is a little girl!
      Copyright laws screwed up the whole world!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Copyright laws screwed up the whole world!
        out of 10

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >suddenly

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://e621.net/posts/3831339

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can somebody explain the deep CB lore to me? Is she a bear pretending to be a little girl or is she a little girl that thinks she's a little girl that thinks she's a bear?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the later sorta, its suggested but not confirmed that she's a little girl who sees herself as a teddy bear.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >cookie is a furgay
        Oh no...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >cookie is a furgay
        Oh no...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          cookie a CUTE

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      She's a five-year old girl from New Jersey, who somehow is also an Olympic athlete
      Also there's aliens and terrorists

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I always assumed the all the edgy art of her with guns and shit were just memes. I had no idea this is just the game

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I hate the israelitegorithms for bringing this to all of you gays

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. I fricking hate any YouTube gay channel that covers obscure games, fricking morons don't deserve being exposed to any of it

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Draw her playing a Super Famicom

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Requestiong Cookie blowing the dust out of a cartidge

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    pedophiles make the worst fricking threads

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >If I constantly shit on threads with pedophile accusations no one will ever suspect I actually get off to real little girls and boys!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        who are you quoting

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            this isn't even a e-girl thread, it's a lot of pointless babble about copyright

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It's only pointless if you're a defeatist cuck that lives with knees bent.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can Cookie be in Super Mario Gankerorld?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Copyright troll BTFO
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie%27s_Bustle

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >see also: streisand effect

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hypothetically how but blasted would the copyright troll be if someone took the Cookie model that was uploaded to the trademark website and used it to make their own game?

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Make a cute bear
    >...........
    > Make a cute bear and say they're actually a little girl
    >AAA SO HOT!!!!!!1!
    An actual e-girl thread died for this trash

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no one is stopping you from starting another Pragmata thread, anon

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    cute bear

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *