|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-18-2003 11:35 AM
I agree with Dave that nonviolent crimes shouldn't be punished with prison time. But the Prison Guard's Union will continue to lobby the government for more stupid laws and an increase in mandatory minimum sentences so that they can build more prisons and create more jobs.
As for copyright laws, they've become absurd. It's gone from, "Here is a law to protect the Artist and his work so that he can make a living from what he enjoys doing." to "Let's extend this law so that long after the artist and majority of his family is dead and gone, the parent company which published his work can continue to make money off of his corpse." Hence the phrase, "Commemorative Edition."
Who the hell am I hurting financially by making a copy of Gone With The Wind? David O. Selznick? Selnick International? MGM? New Line? Or the collective executives at AOL Time Warner who won't get their share of $15? It's been over 60 years, isn't it time to just give it up to society? Who gets paid every time the Mona Lisa is viewed? I can't wait for the Special Edition Now In Galleries with Digitally Enhanced eyebrows so that I can be a good little consumer.
What about all those pictures in the picture warehouse of various theaters that have videocameras pointed at the screens to "check focus and framing in the other theaters"? Does everyone there go to jail, too?
FIVE YEARS for depriving a corporation of its profits. But who puts the studios in jail for depriving us of two hours of our lives for all the crap they release? Not to mention the countless hours I gave up out of my life so that their ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif) product can hit the screen on time so they can make $90 million in a weekend... Aren't I entitled to a free copy?
The industry has seen record profits, so maybe if they throw some people in jail, the trend will continue. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-18-2003 04:50 PM
quote:
Thankfully there are copyright laws that protect creative people from people who believe as you do, otherwise those creative people would never be able to make a living at what they do and would not do it, as they would always be getting ripped off by people who believe as you do.
oddly enough, i'm more concerned with being creative myself than bootlegging others' works.
quote:
It astonishes me how much disregard you have for non-physical forms of property, along with how much you are seemingly against capitalization -- of words.
ha ha. yeah, i'm just too lazy to use the shift key. actually, when i write longhand, i often write in ALL CAPS. go figger.
quote:
Who gets paid every time the Mona Lisa is viewed?
well, the louvre. and let me tell you, a lot of people view that painting. it's hard to even get close to it, there are so many people swarming around it, with their digital cameras and video recorders held over their heads (i even filmed them doing this a few months ago). where's the outcry? good post, tp.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-19-2003 01:24 AM
quote:
Who the hell am I hurting financially by making a copy of Gone With The Wind? David O. Selznick? Selnick International? MGM? New Line? Or the collective executives at AOL Time Warner who won't get their share of $15? It's been over 60 years, isn't it time to just give it up to society?
You wouldn't want it if it was not under copyright. It would be PD & you'd just find crappy versions from Madacy & worse.
If it falls into the public domain, anyone can dupe & sell it & the copyright owners cannot recoup their costs to make available the best quality issues, i.e., from the best possible sources (physically in their possession & ownership) & with their financial resources gained from selling titles they own.
This had long been a problem for silent & older movies. Before the US copyright laws were last changed to make the period of copyright more closely conform to European, TONS of things had fallen into PD. All those titles were available from cheapjack PD video (& sometimes film) companies, horrible splicy, incomplete, trashed, dupey (to the point some had contrast so high that they were literally black & white), some taped from TV, color features completely pink.
Since the copyright period was returned back to (now about) 1924, there's never been availability of the best-quality versions of movies previously PD. Universal put out The Man Who Laughs, licensing agreements made excellent restorations of Metropolis available, Chaplin's estate has made his materials available for the excellent sets out now, etc.
The copyright law does have a serious flaw in that *some* titles in which there is interest are not available. The best suggestion that was made was that it should be amended so that after a period of 50 years or so, if the owner does not make them available, they revert to the public domain. That would maintain an incentive against boneheadedness, as well as for profit & availability.
But copyright provides commercial incentive for the owners to sell the best version of the product, & that they certainly have been doing if they think they can make a buck on it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-20-2003 06:39 AM
quote:
But it's ok for some thieves to come along and steal whatever creative thing you do and sell it without giving you anything for it?
hey, i'd be flattered. but why would anyone buy it from someone else when they can just "steal" it from me?
quote:
The copyright law does have a serious flaw in that *some* titles in which there is interest are not available.
there is no way to verify this, but i'd guess that's true for *most* titles, considering all works of a reproducible nature (films, books, etc.) at all levels of popularity.
people seem to justify copyright in 2 different ways. they claim that intellectual "product" rightfully belongs to its originator. i've argued that this product may be appropriated by others without diminishing the extent to which it "belongs" to the originator. hence the word "theft" is mis-applied.
alternately, they claim it is necessary to foster creativity. while the nature of creative output is undoubtedly shaped by the existence of copyright laws, i can see no reason to assume that without copyright works of equal validity would not be created. we would still have culture, but it would be on the whole more organic, more concerned with reflecting experience and expressing ideas than the pablum dolled up (sometimes quite artfully) to pass as our mainstream entertainment.
maybe you like the status quo. that's fine. in fact, mainstream "art" is a valid reflection of the factors contributing to it, and will for this reason have value for future cultural historians. but what it indirectly documents is the capitalization of culture, from the perspective of very large corporations, which is not very helpful to the common cultural consumer trying to gain insight into the conditions of his existence.
but whether you do or don't like the art/entertainment we have now isn't important. the question is whether the government should have a hand in shaping it, be it by directly controlling its content, as in many countries, or by creating conditions that skew its nature, as i argue is the case here and in most countries. especially as this involves the enforcement of an arbitrary right (to control all manifestations of ones creativity, necessarily subjectively interpreted, for a limited, but ill-defined time) over a more basic and ancient right (to do as one pleases with that one physically owns, such as making a copy).
quote:
Maybe it would be helpful for you to think along the lines of why there ARE copyright and patent laws, to figure out how and why the world works.
laws will stay in place as long as powerful entities benefit from them, or through propaganda, or sheer stupid inertia. the economy of the old south was dependent on slavery. that's not a defense of slavery; that's a criticism of the economy. [please don't interpret that as an equation of the wrong of slavery with the wrong of copyright.]
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Schmidt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 172
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-20-2003 07:37 AM
Thomas, you are a little confused about current copyright law. It's OK right now, and always has been, to make a copy of any movie (such as by recording from TV) for your own personal use only. This is known as "fair use." What would not be OK is to sell the copy to someone else. There is a great deal of confusion over copyright these days, and the greedy Hollywood cartels are spreading all sorts of misinformation about, such as the recent claims that if you watch a show on TV and zap the commercials, you are stealing their copyrighted property. Utter nonsense.
The reason funny laws come out of Congress is because it is no longer "We The People." It is "The New Corporate Government of America." When a Senator has to raise several million $,$$$,$$$ to run his re-election campaign, of necessity he becomes a bagman
for this kind of money does not appear without strings attached.
There are lots of Republicans associated with the building and operation of prisons so we may be seeing many more laws leading to felony convictions with very harsh penalties and jail time. Adds to their profits, you see.
A very good source of information about the raging copyright controversies is the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
www.eff.org ... have a look, the links can keep you busy for hours.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing contained in this post is to be construed as legal advice, and opinions expressed herein are personal.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-20-2003 10:34 AM
This is getting nuts
Enough with the Big Brother BS
Copyright and Patent laws are not some government conspiracy guys, they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living". (Sounds like some of the posters here, eh?) Those laws exist because "We The People" allow them to.
Look...like it or not it's all about money. It takes that to survive. No one can live with out it and the creative types YOU wish to NOT reward for their efforts (by stealing it from them with out paying them) are NOT going to make the things you want to steal unless THEY make money. It is NOT a labor of love. It is a labor FOR PROFIT. If you have a particular movie genre that you like, the only way they will continue to make those types of movies is IF THEY MAKE MONEY. If they don't they won't.
All those "greedy Hollywood cartels" or "powerful entities" all work for someone, they are called stockholders. They are little people like you and me. Those "fat cat's" jobs are to make money for the stockholders. If they don't they lose their jobs. So I guess that makes the stockholders greedy too, right? Before long this is going to get to the point where "everyone is greedy".
Now how about you? I hear bitching because you think you are not rewarded enough and think you should be entitled to make illegal dupes of films. Why is it you should be rewarded the way you think you should be, but at the same time everyone else is being "greedy" because they want to be rewarded "justly", as you do?
Now if you want to make things and give it away feel free. If you would "feel honored" or "flattered" if someone steals from you, be my guest. But do not think because you don't have a problem with being a thief, or thievery in general, that others don't, or that some how it's Ok. It's not. No amount of rationalizing is going to make it Ok. You are NOT "entitled" to anything you do not earn or pay for. That IS the law and it's there for very good reasons.
You want something, step up and lay your money down. Don't whine because you haven't got enough money. Go out and earn it, like everyone else, and then buy the things you want. It's they way this country works.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-20-2003 05:36 PM
quote:
Enough with the Big Brother BS
Copyright and Patent laws are not some government conspiracy guys
it's no good painting me as a conspiracy nut. i never made that claim. all this stuff is out in the open. hell, the majority of people probably don't even question copyright. i don't equate laziness of thought with conspiracy.
quote:
they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living".
they are there to "protect" the creative types who think "the world owes me a living".
quote:
I hear bitching because you think you are not rewarded enough and think you should be entitled to make illegal dupes of films. Why is it you should be rewarded the way you think you should be, but at the same time everyone else is being "greedy" because they want to be rewarded "justly", as you do?
i never said that. i don't make dupes of films. i don't profit off them. what the hell?
quote:
I really do not need my way of life threatened by some street hood selling pirated copies of movies that I am currently playing at my theatre for $9.99 a piece - down the damn street.... However, the fact that they are flawless copies that were obviously obtained in some very high-level way poses a problem to me.
a video will never be a flawless copy of a film, just like a photograph is not a flawless copy of a painting. it's a different medium. sorry, that's a nitpick. but this is the sort of "making it personal" argument that has no moral weight for me. sure, if your business model is built on certain vicissitudes, you'll take a hit when they change. that doesn't in any way justify those vicissitudes.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-21-2003 12:55 AM
Greg Mueller has been stating my point of view on this a lot more calmly & tactfully than I could.
quote:
they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
they are there to "protect" the creative types who think "the world owes me a living".
What I'm reading here is that you expect "creative types" not to be able to get the best price they can for their work, or the people who distribute & support creative works to get the best price for what they do. The "creative types" are setting a price for their work, & if they don't want to sell it at a price that's less than they believe it's worth, or will justify the cost, or will keep them at an income level they think they deserve, they don't have to sell it at that price. The insult of "creative types who think "the world owes me a living" duplicitously ignores the fact that they've already done WORK to create the item being sold. They ARE working for their living. Taking something without paying for it because it's easy is NOT working.
quote:
alternately, they claim it is necessary to foster creativity. while the nature of creative output is undoubtedly shaped by the existence of copyright laws, i can see no reason to assume that without copyright works of equal validity would not be created.
It's neccessary to foster creativity, because the people who create it have to eat, & have to pay rent to have someplace to live. And as you futher demean people who create copyrighted work, you suggest that you should have the right to just take it for nothing if you want it. There's HUGE denial there. It's got worth, you want it, & don't want to purchase it.
Then that bogus bit about the "capitalization of culture". You aren't interested in some strange new thing like socialized art, because you aren't proposing a mechanism to create it by supporting artists outside of a capitalist system. And you know you wouldn't want socialized art, because the product WOULD be exactly the thing you erroneously say that creative works are now - only works created, approved & distributed by the government.
quote:
we would still have culture, but it would be on the whole more organic, more concerned with reflecting experience and expressing ideas than the pablum dolled up (sometimes quite artfully) to pass as our mainstream entertainment
Just because you contradict yourself, it doesn't mean what you said is profound. Artfully? That's work. That's lots of time spent in the creative fields, learning to do things well, learning what a majority of people like. The hardest thing to do is write a Top 40 hit. Think you can do it? Think just anyone can do it? People who've done it once haven't done it again, millions try to do it just once. And even the ones who haven't hit yet just like the successful ones have a HUGE investment in time & money that have gone toward working on it. Chuck college & hit the road with a band writing & performing, or just give up nights & weekends, your time & money are being invested in your work. What you gain in expertise & ability has worth through its acquisition & use. Would you like to tell anyone else here that their work & expertise they've spent a huge portion of their lives & money on have no worth? You want to just stiff them on a bill for putting your booth together, or not give them a paycheck for running movies this week?
My political views are farther to the left than Greg Mueller's, but none of this has ever been about politics. Since Napster appeared, people have tried to find ways to justify theft any way they can - it's the future, it's a new distribution path, it's a political point. None have even been close to functional, rational models, just babbling. They don't propose in their systems any way of satisfying the creators or owners. They don't start at that end, they start at just taking something because they have what looks like a safe opportunity. They're just styrofoam ego shields for infantile want. I want it, it should be mine!
It's not a streamlined economic model. The cost of something is NEVER set by the buyer; it is AGREED upon by the seller & the buyer. If the seller doesn't want to sell it for the price the buyer proposes, or the buyer doesn't want to pay the price the seller is selling it for, it is not sold. It goes all the way up & down the line, from the creator agreeing on price with a publisher, a publisher with a distributor, a distributor with a retailer, a retailer with the end consumer. If the "consumer" decides "I don't want to pay that much, I'll just take it", that's theft.
quote:
laws will stay in place as long as powerful entities benefit from them, or through propaganda, or sheer stupid inertia.
Or as long as it's neccessary to protect people from folks who would steal their property or exploit them. Where are thieves of copyrighted works in this picture?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic